No, We Won't Calm Down
everydayfeminism.com/2015/12/tone-policing-an...
everydayfeminism.comPosted Nov 11, 2016, 8:09 PM UTC
11222
everydayfeminism.comThis was exactly the response I needed to the well meaning straight white male friends who keep repeatedly posting about how everyone needs to just calm down.
13
I don't entirely agree with this comic. Both sides of the argument presented are wrong, for various reasons. When a person is emotionally charged, you have to work twice as hard to have a productive conversation and that's shitty, but that doesn't mean that an emotional person is never capable of expressing logical/factual points.
11
But that's the thing. You can be emotional and express logical/factual points at the same time. But calling someone out for "being emotional" and as such disregarding their points as "biased" or not logical...
Edit: I think people are taking this as encouragement to go out and yell at people. That's not what this is. It is simply saying that there are justifiable situations where being sad or angry are okay. It is not always the oppressed's responsibility to get every single person who disregards them to listen to their side. Do you know how draining that is? Trying to remain calm while people are putting you down over and over again? Obviously, it is good to try, but we shouldn't make people feel bad for not being able to.
17
Often times it's hardest to get through what you're trying to say because of strong emotion. I know I've had that problem before. I know for me personally if I'm able to step aside for a moment and collect myself I can present my opinions better and get more accomplished. I don't know a single person that likes dealing with angry yelling people no matter what the issue is.
1
So like, this is specifically how I was raised to talk to others - take a step back, excise the emotion, present your arguments/reasons/what have you calmly, find a solution. Intellectually, I can easily understand that sometimes conversations are just for venting or news-sharing, not specifically problem-solving. But....I want to fix it! And I hate feelings! I think the British genes to press all your feelings deep down inside until they're just a tiny ball of smoldering sarcasm is very strong in my family.
I think it would a mistake to suggest that all attempts at calm, collected discourse are simply a manipulation that is helping The Man keep us down. I mean, in the workplace, for example, is not going to be the time or place to get loud and angry about some issue. But I definitely need to learn that sometimes the conversation is ALL about the emotion and I need to just say "That sucks. I'm sorry everything is the worst."
... Are you sure we can't all just suppress our emotions?
5
I don't even mean loud and angry so much, really. For me, it's often tears. Even at the workplace, if something affects you so much, sometimes you can't help but cry. I can choose not to yell but it is much much harder to choose not to cry. I can do it but I shouldn't have to, not when my concerns are valid. It's not unprofessional to be a human being.
I think you are thinking of separate issues here. At a workplace, getting angry may be inappropriate but so is racism. And anger is an understandable response to racism. It's not the "right" one, but I don't think we should punish and put down people for it. For things like "I don't like your decision", it is different.
And obviously not all attempts at being calm are that. But telling others they should be more calm and collected when something has affected them deeply is hurtful. I'm not saying you shouldn't be calm; I'm saying you have the justification to not be.
2
I mean, I think a lot of people react negatively to displays of emotion in certain settings is because it makes people feel manipulated. Think about "weaponized emotions" like guilt-tripping people.
When you can convey your emotions calmly, you're signalling to people that you're appealing to them reasonably rather than letting your emotions and manipulating their emotions dominate the conversation.
2
I agree - but the problem is that you are not manipulating them with your emotions. That's how you feel. If they feel bad about how you feel, why does that disqualify you? If your sadness brings them to tears it is not manipulation, it is simply human beings empathizing.
There are moments when people use "emotions" as tools for manipulation. But people also use "reason" to manipulate others. As soon as I cry, someone sees it as manipulation. It's not. It is simply that that is how I feel. I'm not trying to get anyone to feel sorry for me. I want them to understand me, and tears or not in my eyes, listen to what I am saying.
Calling displays of emotion manipulation when that is what they are is 100% right. Calling every display of emotion manipulation is very different from that. I know that some people can control their emotions very easily, or have had to learn how to (believe me, I have had to learn how to but it is not healthy nor practical for me to), and thus do not understand why others would let their emotions show if it were not a tactic. But it is also rooted in culture and the western culture is very cut off from emotions and views them negatively just in general.
1
Oh God, the crying. I cry every time I'm angry and like u/MarauderShields618 (lulz, btw, at your name) is saying, I think when this happens the other person just feels manipulated. I also feel like I'm manipulating them. Maybe neither party should, because as you say, both reason and emotion are valuable persuasive techniques. But our society values one more greatly than the other so I feel a bit stuck in that framework.
Maybe I am thinking of separate issues. I think the comic just came across as too broad of a definition to me. In the specific context of having a conversation about an upsetting issue/experience/whatever, telling someone to calm down should be clearly insensitive and wrong. I guess what this comic is getting at, and where the gray area is, is when you are discussing something that doesn't seem reasonably emotional to the other party yet is for you. Soooo I guess I agree with you? Mostly? 90%.
1
I think some of the examples in the comic were helpful. Like, if a woman is making an argument and their opponent is telling them they are being too emotional when they aren't, that is a way of controlling the conversation. But if you are yelling at someone about the rights of Aboriginal Australians and neither of you is even an Australian, then you might need to tone it down. I mean, it comes down to social norms and context of the conversation. Stating that all attempts to keep conversation calm and polite is "tone policing" is the same as saying voicing any emotion during debate is an attempt to manipulate.
1
I definitely agree. You can have an impassioned conversation, and present your reasonable position without having to be an unfeeling debate-o-tron.
By telling someone to "calm down" when they're not foaming at the mouth or just being abusive, they're trying to put themselves up as the more reasonable position, even if their position is bullshit.
It should go without saying that obviously don't like, verbally assault people. If you think that's what this comic is saying is OK then you should try re-reading it. This is not okaying abuse, it's validating speaking passionately.
Don't Calm Down!
3
[deleted]
1
[removed]
-5
I stumbled into the wrong sub.
Don't let the door hit you!
6
calm down
You can't change the focal point to emotion and use it to argue legitimacy of argument when derailing is in itself not holding to legitimacy of argument.
2
Stumble away, you're only embarrassing yourself
2
I don't care who is a democrat and who is not. 49% of the population (wrong statistic but let's roll with it) can be bigots, ever heard of slavery or Hitler?
I may not know what drives people to the booth, but I do know what they are willing to overlook while driving to that booth. If someone overlooks running me over to get there, then yes, I do have permission to feel extremely sad and discouraged. It has nothing to do with actual politics. It has to do with the fact that, you know, they ran me over. It is personal (say, for those who want tax breaks, is that not personal?)
2
Lets give it up for the white women who clinched the election for Trump
https://prowlerprowler.bandcamp.com/album/communizzle
Fresh. Track5
If you think half the population are bigots, get some help.
0
I feel like this may be preaching to the choir, so please share this with your liberal friends who insist on taking the high road. I understand that listening to the other side is important and straight up calling them racists isn't useful; but please don't blame me for calling them racists because that is what they are. They can vote for the policies and not racism all they want, but when those policies are racist, then they are racist too.
Agreed. If it talks like a duck, quacks like a duck then why can't I call it a duck? I swear these people get upset over "PC Culture" if its not directed at them. Bigots.
Ah yes, which means the third of Hispanic voters who voted for Trump are all racists.
I think that plenty of racists voted for Trump, but I don't think it's fair to say that every single person who voted for Trump is a racist. I also think it statistically certain that at least some racists voted for Hillary. Calling almost half of the American people racist is the exact reason the election went the way it did.
I can respect and admire the passion on this sub, but someone has to draw the line somewhere. Dismissing everyone who disagrees with you as a bigot and a racist will leave you standing in an empty room all by yourself pretty quickly.
Are you saying people of other races besides caucasian can't be racist?
I assure you, they can and some of them are.
No one is saying they're automatically racists for no reason, we're saying that if you voted Trump you either agree with his racist, sexist, homophobic comments and views or you downright don't care enough to even stop and think about how it'll affect those.
This is beyond a simple disagreement, this is one side fighting for civil rights while the other cheerfully rips them apart.
Key word "some." It's pretty ridiculous to claim that about half of the American people and a third of Hispanic Americans are automatically racists. Considering that at least SOME Hillary supporters must be racists as well, you're looking at about 60%+ of the American population being racists.
These blind generalizations are just as bad as racism. They share the EXACT same underpinnings! Let's take an entire group of people and make assumptions about them based on a single characteristic. Sounds great.